{"id":6,"date":"2017-05-25T13:49:05","date_gmt":"2017-05-25T20:49:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/?page_id=6"},"modified":"2017-06-11T20:35:38","modified_gmt":"2017-06-12T03:35:38","slug":"platform-evaluation","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/platform-evaluation\/","title":{"rendered":"Platform Evaluation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Below is our group&#8217;s Assignment #1 for ETEC 565A -66B: \u00a0Platform Evaluation. \u00a0My group members are\u00a0<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Amanda Green, Chris Helsby, Craig Murrell, Reg Surette. \u00a0<\/span>We chose to examine Moodle from the perspective of a fictitious college, Bronzegate College, which was modeled on Centennial College in the GTA.<\/p>\n<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Assignment 1: Platform Evaluation &#8211; Bronzegate College*<\/span><\/h1>\n<h5 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Amanda Green, Chris Helsby, Craig Murrell, Reg Surette<\/span><\/h5>\n<h5 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">ETEC 565A: 66B<\/span><\/h5>\n<h5 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">University of British Columbia<\/span><\/h5>\n<h6><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">* fictitious institution, adapted from Centennial College e-learning Strategy (Centennial College, 2011, 2013)<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Organizational Overview<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bronzegate College is an urban community college in the Greater Toronto Area. \u00a0It currently enrolls 20,000 full-time and 20,000 part-time students. \u00a0Its core diploma programs include business, trades, nursing, and engineering technology. \u00a0The student population is diverse and includes mature students, international and English as a Second Language (ESL) students, and recent high school graduates. \u00a0The student population also comprises a range of technological experiences\u00a0and therefore requires adopted educational technologies and media to be simple and user-friendly.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Examining Bronzegate&#8217;s strategic master plan and learning strategy documents provide insight into the institution\u2019s key goals. \u00a0They aim to:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">strengthen networks among students, faculty, and staff<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">provide accessible and challenging learning environments<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">employ the most effective pedagogical practices<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">engage students with a focus on utilizing e-learning as a transformative tool <\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">ensure that every in-class course has an online course management component<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">improve access &#8211; specifically how e-learning can transform student and teacher learning experiences as well as access \u201ctarget clienteles\u201d by providing an inclusive environment for students with disabilities (<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Guri-Rosenblit, 2005).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To satisfy Bronzegate&#8217;s goals, a centralized system for in-class, blended, and online courses is required, that includes course content and functionality synonymous with online course management. This must include bulk course creation, a gradebook to track student progress, communication tools, and integration with the registrar\u2019s office that allows for students to be linked to their registered Learning Management System (LMS) courses. \u00a0Funding is limited for digital infrastructure improvements. \u00a0Any LMS chosen must be affordable, flexible, customizable, and able to evolve to keep the technology relevant without requiring continuous, costly, updates. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bronzegate College has undergone the process of selecting an LMS that will satisfy these needs and function across all departments and campuses as a centralized course repository, providing an online complement to in-class courses and platform for blended and online delivery. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><strong>Platform Analysis: Synopsis<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The LMS evaluation team utilized the SECTIONS framework (Bates, 2015) to evaluate the various LMS\u2019 platform affordances, using the institutional goals and requirements discussed above as guiding criteria. \u00a0<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Through utilizing Bates\u2019s inductive reasoning method (Bates, 2015), we determined that EdX Edge, Eliamedy, and Quizwork-LMS were not robust enough to support the needs of a growing college with large enrollment numbers. \u00a0Blackboard was a legitimate consideration; however, it is costly, with consistent price increases and poor support for reliant institutions<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. \u00a0<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The evaluating team, therefore, determined that Moodle is the best fit. Moodle is free and open source software, and its features best align to Bronzegate\u2019s goal of education technology supporting transformative learning, and pedagogical focus on social constructivism. Moodle is designed to produce web-based courses, websites, and portals, released under the GNU General Public License. In addition, it supports the popular SCORM (\u201cSharable Content Object Reference Model\u201d) standards for LMSs and e-learning platforms. It has been translated into over 70 languages and has a dedicated community of global testers and contributors (Douguiamas, 2007). <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">As an open source application, Moodle documentation is collaboratively written by a global community of developers, and is constantly evolving. This approach can produce numerous advantages over proprietary solutions, as Noyes (2010) describe. They include:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Security. Software vulnerabilities are often noticed and corrected faster.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Quality and customizability. Users develop products that cater to their needs.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Freedom and flexibility. The cycle of upgrading\/updating constantly is no longer a concern for maintaining support options and functionality.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Interoperability. \u00a0Open-source products usually better adhere to open standards.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Support Options. \u00a0Many open-source platforms have an extensive online community with thorough documentation, forums, wikis, newsgroups, etc.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Try Before You Buy. \u00a0An institution can install and evaluate a platform without financial commitment.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Students<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">When evaluating students\u2019 requirements for adopting technology, we must consider demographics, access to technology, and differing learning styles (Bates, 2015). \u00a0Moodle provides a range of accessibility options, including mobile apps, and social media integration, as well as diverse methods of delivering content, including videos and quizzes. These varying media features and lesson styles may enhance student learning (Unal, Bodur &amp; Unal, 2012; Farley et al., 2015). Moodle meets both institutional goals and Bates\u2019 recommendations for student engagement. <\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ease of Use<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Due to Bronzegate\u2019s diverse users, Moodle\u2019s simple interface meets institutional requirements, and aligns with Bates\u2019 recommendations of first-time users being able to study within 20 minutes of logging in (Bates, 2015). \u00a0Several studies have directly compared Blackboard to Moodle for ease of use. \u00a0In aggregate, student surveys suggest that students prefer their experience with Moodle to Blackboard, giving Moodle higher usability ratings and higher ratings of communication functions and course organization (Bremner &amp; Bryant, 2005; Machado &amp; Tao, 2007; Unal &amp; Unal, 2011). <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Studies of faculty experiences suggest that an administration\u2019s support and training can play a key role in improving both faculty satisfaction and use of a new LMS (Al-Busaidi &amp; Al-Shihi, 2012; Varnell, 2016). \u00a0Beyond satisfaction surveys, researchers have also attempted to score and rank aspects of open source LMS systems, and Moodle has received some of the highest ratings for its communication tools (Cavus &amp; Zabadi, 2014), and adaptability (Graff &amp; List, 2005). \u00a0Due to Moodle\u2019s open source nature, it will not only serve student requirements, but continuously improve with the available platform support and\/or in house development. The same ease of use improvements for Moodle have been reported as dwindling user satisfaction ratings for one of its top competitors, BlackBoard (Walsh, 2010). Thus, Moodle appears to align with Bronzegate\u2019s goals of student engagement in a technologically accessible format. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Cost<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Moodle, as free open-source software, seems the obvious LMS choice. Any user can adapt, extend, or modify Moodle, with the exception of some upgradable cost-features (Noyes, 2010; Thomas, 2014). \u00a0Moodle is sometimes considered more administratively complex, as aspects of hosting, IT services, migration time, customization and upgrades are not part of a bundled license, as with proprietary software such as Blackboard (Thomas, 2014). \u00a0Despite this, a recent University of Alberta report suggests Moodle may still be an overall cost-saving option, though it requires significant upfront investment to develop (Matil, 2011). \u00a0These cost-savings are in line with Bronzegate\u2019s emphasis on an affordable LMS. \u00a0No-cost licensing at least partially offsets institutional financial considerations, and Bronzegate has a local ISD team, who can customize and design a large portion of the content. <\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Teaching Functions \/ Pedagogy and Interaction<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">LMS adoption encourages increased access and interactivity with school staff and support services, as well as opportunities for global social constructivism (Moodle, 2017). Fostering student-centered interactions of learner-materials, learner-learner, and learner-instructor described throughout this LMS evaluation, Moodle aligns to Bronzegate\u2019s e-learning Strategy of learning via collaborative engagement. With these integrated interaction features, timely feedback, and moderated communication, Moodle will improve the learner experience.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bates and Sangara (2011) state the pedagogy required by the department is the most important factor for determining the choice of tools used for e-learning; that is, what is the Teaching Function of the tool. \u00a0Bronzegate College is committed to using the most effective pedagogical practices to help engage students through harnessing e-learning as a transformative tool, and strengthening networks. Platform-based e-learning allows the employment of interactive strategies and media that may help improve student learning and strengthen interactions, such as integrated online quizzes, peer assessments, Communities of Practice through discussion boards, and customization to accommodate mobile learning (mLearning) (Green, Farchione, Hughes, &amp; Chan, 2014; Mart\u00edn-Blas &amp; Serrano-Fern\u00e1ndez, 2009; Wei, Peng, &amp; Chou,2015; Yu &amp; Jo, 2014). \u00a0Such features are a significant advantage of Moodle over its competitors, as they support social constructivist pedagogy and student learning (Moodle, 2017).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Another important part of Bates\u2019 Teaching Functions for LMS\u2019 is the use of evidence-based practices (2015). Moodle\u2019s open-source nature provides a potential for scalability and customizability to learner\/course needs, such as modularized course\/lesson editing, as described by Baraniuk (2008). It also offers data tracking, to gauge learner performance and determine if any areas of the course require refinement. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Research indicates that students felt Moodle promoted familiarity by providing a consistent structure for application features useful in completing tasks (Wilson, 2010). \u00a0Instructors have also found Moodle\u2019s flexibility to be critical in maintaining interest and stimulating discussion with students in their classes (Wilson, 2010).<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Organizational Issues<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bronzegate\u2019s existing IT support staff and Instructional Systems Design (ISD) team will be engaged to spearhead the platform rollout. As the institution has been increasingly adopting technology and tech-enabled learning for over a decade, minimal departmental reorganization is required. There will be a requirement to provide Moodle-specific training to support staff, as well as to employ a media specialist as well as a Moodle platform and ISD expert to lead the LMS customization requirements.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Moodle LMS provides 24\/7 support, scalability, accessibility, and guaranteed server reliability (Moodle, 2017). It has over 90 million users, and has been proven to support large enterprise operations such as university student enrollments (Moodle, 2017). Given its features and successful implementation at similar academic institutions, Moodle has the capability to support Bronzegate\u2019s organizational requirements. <\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Networking<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Moodle has a distinct advantage over other leading LMS platforms with regard to networking and social media integration. It has a default mobile-compatible interface for learning anytime, anywhere (Moodle, 2017). Integrated blogs, wikis, etc. encourage and minimize barriers for student-student and student-instructor interactions all from a centralized learning environment.<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Security<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Overall, Moodle is considered a secure LMS, and as open source, can respond quickly with patches\/upgrades, rather than waiting for new version releases. \u00a0Despite this, a critical security issue was recently reported that could compromise privacy for all student information hosted on a server (Brook, 2017). Moodle has some security issues related to hosting, technician set up, and others related to the organization\u2019s IT team (Costinela-Lumini\u0163a &amp; Nicoleta-Magdalena, 2012; Kumar &amp; Kamlesh, 2011). \u00a0However, if support staff are in place, the risks are similar to other platforms, and Moodle remains a viable choice (Costinela-Luminita &amp; Nicoleta-Magdalena, 2012). Moodle states they are \u201cCommitted to safeguarding data security and user privacy, security controls are constantly being updated and implemented in Moodle development processes and software to protect against unauthorised access, data loss and misuse. Moodle can be easily deployed on a private secure cloud or server for complete control\u201d (Moodle, 2017). <\/span><\/p>\n<h2><strong>LMS Sustainability <\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">John Norman (2007) defines \u201csustainability\u201d as:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201c&#8230;a critical mass of awareness and adoption creates a sustaining community that provides feature requests, bug fixes and mutual support, and the range and intensity of all this activity makes the code more robust.\u201d p. 58<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Further, Geoffrey Moore\u2019s technology adoption model (Figure 1), addresses sustainability by classifying potential users by their willingness to adopt new technology. Software products that do not \u201ccross the chasm\u201d will not have sufficient users to be sustained.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-53\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/files\/2017\/05\/Farmer-Chasm-1.jpeg\" alt=\"\" width=\"582\" height=\"177\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/files\/2017\/05\/Farmer-Chasm-1.jpeg 582w, https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/files\/2017\/05\/Farmer-Chasm-1-300x91.jpeg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 582px) 100vw, 582px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Figure 1 \u2013 Geoffrey Moore\u2019s Technology Adoption Model (Farmer, 2007) \u00a0(CC BY-SA 2.0 UK)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">According to Farmer (2007), Moodle is an open source project successfully crossing the chasm, as the foundation and partners work together to support rapid growth and software development. \u00a0The worldwide network of partner companies that provide Moodle-based client services are a key platform strength (Douguiamas, 2007). \u00a0Their efforts maintain, adapt and extend the functionality and serviceability of Moodle beyond the capabilities of in-house development teams in many proprietary software companies. \u00a0This community and partner-driven collaboration makes Moodle an excellent choice when considering sustainability.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Internal sustainability of Moodle within Bronzegate was also evaluated. \u00a0Merkel et al. (2005) stress that \u201cPromoting sustainability involves finding ways of encouraging technology learning and planning in community groups\u201d (p. 1). \u00a0Implementing any sustainable LMS system requires policy and institutional upgrades to support instructors as they adopt Moodle in their classes. \u00a0One way to encourage technology learning and planning in community groups might be to have departments select early adopters to lead training and support teams, backed up by the IT staff of the university (Bates, 2000). \u00a0This ensures that departments have a vision in the implementation, improving the internal sustainability of the adoption.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Finally, Wilson (2010) found that practices that promote in-school use of an LMS may help the development of sustainable practices. By \u201ctransforming\u201d the classroom through Moodle tools and practices, Bronzegate can build a community of engaged users who help to ensure internal sustainability of the Moodle platform.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\f<\/span><\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">References<\/span><\/h3>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Al-Busaidi, K. A., &amp; Al-Shihi, H. (2012). Key factors to instructors\u2019 satisfaction of learning management systems in blended learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24(1), 18-39.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Baraniuk, R. G. (2008). \u00a0Challenges and Opportunities for the Open Education Movement: A Connexions case study. \u00a0In T. Iiyoshi, &amp; M. Kumar, Opening up education: The collective advance of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 229-246). \u00a0Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bates, A. and Poole, G. (2003) Effective Teaching with Technology in\u00a0<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Higher Education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass\/John Wiley and Son<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bates, A.W. &amp; Sangra, A. (2011). Managing Technology in Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bremer, D, Bryant, R. (2005) \u201cA Comparison of two learning management Systems: Moodle vs Blackboard\u201d , Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications. pg135-1390 <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Brook, C. (2017, Mar 21). \u00a0Critical Moodle Vulnerability Could Lead to Server Compromise. \u00a0Threat Post. \u00a0Retrieved from: <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/threatpost.com\/critical-moodle-vulnerability-could-lead-to-server-compromise\/124446\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/threatpost.com\/critical-moodle-vulnerability-could-lead-to-server-compromise\/124446\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Cavus, N., &amp; Zabadi, T. (2014). A comparison of open source learning management systems. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 521-526.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Centennial College. (2011). Centennial\u2019s eLearning Strategy. Toronto: Centennial College.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Centennial College. \u00a0(2013). \u00a0Centennial College Strategic Master Plan Final Draft. \u00a0Toronto: \u00a0Centennial College. \u00a0Retrieved from: \u00a0<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centennialcollege.ca\/pdf\/publications\/strategic-masterplan-2013.pdf\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/www.centennialcollege.ca\/pdf\/publications\/strategic-masterplan-2013.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Costinela-Lumini\u0163a, C. D., &amp; Nicoleta-Magdalena, C. I. (2012). E-learning security vulnerabilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2297-2301.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Douguiamas, M. (2007). Moodle; a case study in sustainability. JISC Sustainability Study: A Case Review of Open Source Sustainability Models. \u00a0OSS Watch.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Farley, H., Murphy, A., Johnson, C., Carter, B., Lane, M., Midgley, W., Hafeez-Baig, A., Dekeyser, S. &amp; Koronios, A. (2015). How do students use their mobile devices to support learning? A case study from an Australian regional university. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2015(1).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Farmer, J. \u00a0(2007). \u00a0Towards Sustainability of Open Source Software in Higher Education. JISC Sustainability Study: A Case Review of Open Source Sustainability Models. \u00a0OSS Watch.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Graf, S., &amp; List, B. (2005). An evaluation of open source e-learning platforms stressing adaption issues. In Proceedings of 5th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 163-165).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Green, R. A., Farchione, D., Hughes, D. L., &amp; Chan, S. P. (2014). Participation in asynchronous online discussion forums does improve student learning of gross anatomy. Anatomical sciences education, 7(1), 71-76.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Guri-Rosenblit, S. \u00a0(2005) \u00a0\u2018Distance education\u2019 and \u2018e-learning\u2019: Not the same thing. <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Higher Education<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 49(4), 467-493.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Kumar, Sheo, and Kamlesh Dutta. &#8220;Investigation on security in lms moodle.&#8221; International Journal of Information Technology and Knowledge Management 4.1 (2011): 233-238.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Machado, M., &amp; Tao, E. (2007, October). Blackboard vs. Moodle: Comparing user experience of learning management systems. In Frontiers In Education Conference-Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports, 2007. FIE&#8217;07. 37th Annual (pp. S4J-7). IEEE.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Merkel, C., Clitherow, M., Farooq, U., Xiao, L., Ganoe, C.H., Carroll, J.M., and Rosson, M.B. (2005). Sustaining computer use and learning in community computing contexts: Making technology part of who they are and what they do. The Journal of Community Informatics. [online], Vol 1.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Matil, R (2011). Moodle Implementation Strategy. \u00a0TEC Edmonton Internal Report. Prepared for the University of Alberta: unpublished. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mart\u00edn-Blas, T., &amp; Serrano-Fern\u00e1ndez, A. (2009). The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in Physics. Computers &amp; Education, 52(1), 35-44.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Moodle. (2017). About Moodle. Retrieved from <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.moodle.org\/33\/en\/About_Moodle\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/docs.moodle.org\/33\/en\/About_Moodle<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Moodle. (2017). Pedagogy. Retrieved from <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.moodle.org\/33\/en\/Pedagogy#Social_Constructionism_as_a_Referent\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">https:\/\/docs.moodle.org\/33\/en\/Pedagogy#Social_Constructionism_as_a_Referent<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Norman, J. \u00a0(2007). \u00a0Synthesis and Analysis. \u00a0JISC Sustainability Study: A Case Review of Open Source Sustainability Models. \u00a0OSS Watch.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Noyes, K. (2010, November 05). 10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business. PC World. \u00a0Retrieved from<\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.pcworld.com\/article\/209891\/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> http:\/\/www.pcworld.com\/article\/209891\/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Timothy, A. (2014, August 4). Reality check &#8211; Open Source LMS: a costly affair. \u00a0Retrieved from: https:\/\/elearningindustry.com\/reality-check-open-source-lms-costly-affair<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Unal, Z., &amp; Unal, A. (2011). Evaluating and comparing the usability of web-based course management systems. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 19-38.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Unal, Z., Bodur, Y., &amp; Unal, A. (2012, March). Extending distance learning courses for mobile internet users: The case study of mobile moodle. In Society for Information Technology &amp; Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3499-3506). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Varnell, P. (2016). Transitioning to the Learning Management System Moodle from Blackboard: Impacts to Faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(2), n2.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Walsh, K. (2010). Moodle 2.0 versus Blackboard 9.1 \u2013 a Brief Comparison.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Wei, H. C., Peng, H., &amp; Chou, C. (2015). Can more interactivity improve learning achievement in an online course? Effects of college students&#8217; perception and actual use of a course-management system on their learning achievement. Computers &amp; Education, 83, 10-21.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Wilson, G. P. (2010). Sustainable use of MOODLE as a Learning Management System within a School Context (Doctoral dissertation, Central Queensland University). Retrieved from: \u00a0<\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/research.moodle.net\/96\/1\/View%20full%20thesis%20online.pdf\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">http:\/\/research.moodle.net\/96\/1\/View%20full%20thesis%20online.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yu, T., &amp; Jo, I. H. (2014, March). Educational technology approach toward learning analytics: Relationship between student online behavior and learning performance in higher education. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 269-270). ACM.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Below is our group&#8217;s Assignment #1 for ETEC 565A -66B: \u00a0Platform Evaluation. \u00a0My group members are\u00a0Amanda Green, Chris Helsby, Craig Murrell, Reg Surette. \u00a0We chose to examine Moodle from the perspective of a fictitious college, Bronzegate College, which was modeled &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/platform-evaluation\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50089,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-6","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50089"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":57,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6\/revisions\/57"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/amandagreen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}